dismissed O-1A Case: Baseball

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-V-T-USA- LLC 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 14, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a baseball instruction and coaching business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a 
foreign national of extraordinary ability in athletics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 101(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(0)(i). The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the 
petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as a baseball coach pursuant to an approved 
0-1 petition. The Petitioner seeks to extend the Beneficiary's employment for a period of five 
years. 1 After issuing two requests for evidence (RFEs) and then considering the record, the 
Director denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
has achieved the required national or international acclaim in his field. Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or 
materials that meets at least three of the eight regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and additional documentation. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied the plain language requirements of at lea-;t three criteria. 
I. PERTINENT LAW AND REGULATIONS 
Section 101(a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified beneficiary who has 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) provides, in pertinent part: 
"Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of expertise 
indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." 
1 
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(12)(ii), an extension of stay may be authorized in increments of up to one year for an 
0-1 beneficiary to continue or complete the same activity for which he or she was admitted plus an additional I 0 days to 
allow the beneficiary to get his or her personal affairs in order. A five-year extension of stay cannot be granted. 
(b)(6)
Matter of W- V- T- USA- LLC 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate a beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's achievements 
in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a significant nationally or internationally 
recognized award). In the alternative, a petitioner may provide sufficient qualifying documentation 
that meets at least three of the eight categories of documentation listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). If the petitioner shows that the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this 
section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable 
evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(iii)(C). 
The submission of materials relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, evince 
eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994). In addition, we 
have held that, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. 
Thus, in adjudicating the application pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
acting director must examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, 
both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact 
to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on May 19, 2014. The record 
of proceeding includes the Fonn I-129 and supporting documentation, RFEs dated June 3, 2014, and 
August 7, 2014, respectively, the Petitioner's responses to the RFEs, the Director's decision dated 
November 21, 2014, the Petitioner's appeal, and additional evidence the Petitioner submits in support of 
the appeal. We have reviewed the record in its entirety in reaching our decision. 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary as a foreign national with extraordinary ability as 
a baseball coach so that it may continue to employ him at its baseball coaching and instruction 
business. According to Director of the Latin American Program for the 
the Beneficiary played professional minor league baseball from 1988 until 1994. 
From 1995 to 2003, the Beneficiary became a baseball scout, instructor and coach for minor 
league affiliates of the in countries including his native Panama, the Dominican 
Republic and the United States. 
In the initial letter dated April 11 , 2014, the Petitioner explained that it has employed the Beneficiary 
for the past seven years as a baseball coach and instructor and that the Beneficiary has been 
instrumental in the Petitioner's success. In discussing the Beneficiary's background and 
qualifications for the position, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary as "the best of the best" and 
an employee of unique expertise, experience and talent. The Petitioner emphasized that the 
Beneficiary has played professional baseball for "the _ the the 
, and the ' In discussing the Beneficiary 's success in the position, 
the Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary's best students have received college scholarships ."in 
the states of North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia." The Petitioner also confirmed that 
"many" of the Beneficiary's high school students "were selected as First Team All State and All 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of W- V- T- USA- LLC 
Conference" and that one of his students played "in the NCAA College World [S]eries for 
[University of According to the Petitioner's employment 
contract with the Beneficiary, which the parties dated and signed on January 1, 2014, the 
Beneficiary's duties in the United States will include providing private instruction to students 
"as it relates to baseball and girls softball," and other administrative duties. The Petitioner 
provided the Beneficiary ' s pay stubs for several months immediately preceding the filing of the 
Form I-129. 
The director denied the petition on November 21 , 2014, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary has satisfied at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). The director also noted that competitive athletics and coaching/instructing are 
not the same area of expertise. The statute requires that the Beneficiary seek entry into the United 
States "to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) ofthe Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(0)(i) (2007). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "as a former baseball 
player for Major League Baseball (MLB) teams ... [the Beneficiary] is one of the best baseball 
coaches in the country." While a competitive baseball athlete and a baseball coach share knowledge 
of the sport of baseball, the two rely on different sets of basic skills. Thus, we agree with the 
director's finding that competitive baseball and baseball coaching/instruction are not the same area 
of expertise. This interpretation has been upheld in Federal Court. See Lee v. INS, 237 F. Supp. 2d 
914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (holding that extraordinary ability as a baseball player does not imply the 
same ability in all positions or professions in the baseball industry). 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will not assume that a beneficiary with 
extraordinary ability as an athlete has the same level of expertise as a coach or instructor of his or 
her sport. However , given the nexus between athletic competition and coaching or sports 
instruction, in a case where a beneficiary has achieved recent national or international acclaim as an 
athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national or international level, an 
adjudicator may consider the totality of the evidence as reflecting an overall pattern of sustained 
acclaim and extraordinary ability such that it can be concluded that coaching is within the 
beneficiary's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case, users will consider the level at which 
the beneficiary acts as a coach. In this matter, however, the Beneficiary 's athletic accomplishments 
are not recent and the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary has been coaching for many years. 
Accordingly, we will address the Beneficiary's accomplishments as a baseball coach. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
III. PRIOR APPROVALS 
The record indicates that US CIS has previously approved petitions for 0-1 status filed on behalf of the 
Beneficiary. The prior approvals do not preclude users from denying an extension of the original visa 
based on a reassessment of the Petitioner's or Beneficiary's qualifications. 
Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004). In matters 
relating to an extension of nonimmigrant visa petition validity involving the same petitioner, 
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
beneficiary, and underlying facts, USCIS will generally give deference to a prior determination of 
eligibility. However, USCIS is not required to approve a petition for renewal of a visa because, by 
mistake or oversight, it previously approved a visa petition. Royal Siam Corp. v. Cherto_ff, 484 P.3d 139, 
148 (1st Cir. 2007); see also Matter ofChurch Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm'r 1988). 
Each nonimmigrant petition filing is a separate proceeding with a separate record and a separate burden 
of proof. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited to the information 
contained in that individual record of proceeding. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l6)(ii). 
In the present matter, the Director reviewed the record of proceeding and concluded that the Petitioner 
did not meet all eligibility requirements for the requested classification. Based on the lack of required 
evidence of eligibility in the current record, we find that the Director was justified in departing from 
the previous petition approval by denying the instant petition. We are not required to approve 
applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated because of prior approvals. See, 
e.g. Matter o.f Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). USCIS need 
not treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 P.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). Despite any number of previously 
approved petitions, USCIS does not have any authority to confer an immigration benefit when the 
petitioner does not meet its burden of proof in a subsequent petition. See section 291 of the Act. 
IV. ANALYSIS 
A. Extraordinary Ability in Athletics 
1. Consideration of the Evidentiary Criteria2 
If the Petitioner provides documentation that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(A), then it will have provided the requisite 
initial evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. !d. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award; nor has the Petitioner asserted 
that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner must show the Beneficiary's 
eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). After 
careful review of the record and for the reasons discussed herein, the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility under three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation o.f the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field o.f endeavor 
The Petitioner did not initially assert that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion, and the Petitioner's 
initial submission did not include copies of the Beneficiary's prizes or awards for excellence in the 
2 The Petitioner does not claim to satisfy or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories not discussed in this 
decision. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
field. Accordingly, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary received awards and trophies as an athlete 
playing for minor league baseball teams in Panama, including awards for batting champion and 
stolen base champion. Submitting the Beneficiary's prizes or awards is insufficient to meet the plain 
language of the regulation without documentary evidence reflecting that the prize or award is nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner provides six 
foreign language participation certificates dated from 1981 to 1985, pertaining to the Beneficiary 's 
performance as an athlete in little league baseball in Panama. The Petitioner does not provide any 
translation for the certificates. Because the Petitioner has not submitted certified translations of the 
certificates, the certificates have limited probative value. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(3). 
In a letter dated June 26, 2015, in support of the appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary 
also received special recognition from "for his extraordinary 
abilities and impressive [trajectory] and positive influence on the country 's baseball industry," but 
the record does not support the appellate statement. The Petitioner provides a copy of an undated 
photograph with a handwritten foreign-language notation that it shows the Beneficiary and his team 
with The record does not contain sufficient 
information establishing the context of the photograph. Specifically, nothing about the photograph 
itself reflects that those depicted in the photograph are receiving a nationally or internationally 
recognized award or prize. 
The Petitioner also provides letters from Treasurer of the Baseball League of 
Panama dated June 28, 2008. states that the Beneficiary participated 
as an athlete in youth baseball in Panama, representing the province of m national 
championships from 1986 to 1989, and the world championship in 1987 in Canada. 
letter indicates that the Beneficiary was awarded the title of' 
The Petitioner further submits a letter from a major league baseball catcher, stating that 
the Beneficiary "has been named and ' by recognized 
authorities in Panama" (emphasis in original), and that former 
recognized the Beneficiary "for his extraordinary ability, impressive trajectory and positive influence 
on the country's baseball industry." 
As additional evidence in support of the significance of the awards, the Petitioner submits four 
articles published in as follows: 
• "The Express Tied the Record," published in an unidentified newspaper; 
• An untitled article reporting game results published in 
3 While the translation of the letter reflects " " the foreign language original states 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ojW-V-T-VSA- LLC 
• and 
• and [the Beneficiary] ' published in 
All four articles note that the Beneficiary won the award for _ in the 
national junior baseball championship, and one of the articles noted that he also won the award for 
in the same competition . As the above awards are for athletic achievements , they 
cannot serve as qualifying evidence that the Beneficiary meets this criterion as a coach. 
In the alternative, the petitioner has not documented that these awards are qualifying athletic 
awards. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition associated with 
the Beneficiary's two awards at this national junior competition. Upon review, the submitted 
news articles do not reflect that the level of recognition of the Beneficiary's competition victories 
is commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field of competitive baseball. The competitions in which the Beneficiary received awards were for 
youth or junior level competition and by definition not open to all baseball athletes, but to a restricted 
segment of athletes. The petitioner has not shown that these awards were open to experienced 
professionals already working in the field. While age restricted awards may be nationally or 
internationally recognized, it is the petitioner 's burden to substantiate this level of recognition. The 
Petitioner did not provide any information pertaining to the audience, circulation and distribution of 
the above publications, as might be indicative of major trade or general media coverage of the 
awards, or equivalent evidence of their recognition in the field. Overall, the record is insufficient to 
establish that the Beneficiary's titles resulted in his receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence as a baseball athlete and, as such, do not satisfy the 
plain language of this evidentiary criterion . 
With regard to the Beneficiary's coaching experience, states that the Beneficiary 
"participated as Technical instructor [coach] in Panama" (brackets in original), and that in that 
position he "prepared the Major Teams of where he was awarded 4 titles," 
and "[d]irected and prepared the Juvenile Team of on three occasions, taking them to win 
the Championships in " As additional evidence in support of the significance of the 
Beneficiary's award, the Petitioner submits one article dated January 6, that appeared on 
the website www.mensual.prensa.com, and is titled · is Ready for the National Youth." The 
article discusses the composition of the team coached by the Beneficiary prior to its competing in the 
series. The record does not reflect that the Beneficiary 
was a named recipient of this award. Regardless, the competition was for junior or youth athletes and, 
by definition, not open to all baseball athletes. The Petitioner has not shown that this award was open 
to established professionals already working in the field rather than limited to junior athletes. While 
age restricted awards may be nationally or internationally recognized, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
substantiate this level of recognition. The Petitioner also did not provide any information pertaining 
to the audience, circulation and distribution of the publication, to demonstrate major trade or 
general media coverage of the award or equivalent evidence of its recognition in the field. Thus, the 
record does not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T- USA- LLC 
Finally, the record does not establish the significance of the remaining titles that 
asserts teams coached by the Beneficiary won in adult competition in . and in junior 
national competition in Similarly, the record does not show that the Beneficiary was the 
recipient of these awards. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal(fornia , 14 I&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has received nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in coaching. Upon review, the submitted evidence 
does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .field for which 
class(fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not address or submit any evidence to establish that 
the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion based upon his employment with the following teams: 
• As an athlete with minor league baseball teams from 1988 to 1994, including minor league 
teams affiliated with the and and 
• As a coach and scout for minor league level teams affiliated with the 
Latin America and the United States from 1995 to 2003. 
Ill 
The record contains several published articles pertaining to the Beneficiary and several testimonial 
letters discussing the Beneficiary's employment. The Beneficiary's athletic membership on teams from 
1988 to 1994 would be based on his ability as a competitive athlete, not as a coach, the field for which 
classification is sought. The Beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a member of those teams, 
before he was active as a coach, cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner next asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon his employment as 
a coach, instructor and scout for minor league level teams associated with the In 
order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. At issue is the nature of the membership requirements rather than the association's 
overall reputation. In response to the Director's RFE dated June 3, 2014, and on appeal, the 
Petitioner has provided letters from past colleagues of the Beneficiary at the 
including the director of the team's Latin American Program, one of 
the team's minor league coaches, Manager of Minor League Operations, 
the team's scouting director, and , the Beneficiary 's scouting supervisor, all 
praising the Beneficiary 's abilities as a coach and scout. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
First, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that employment constitutes membership in an association. 
Regardless, upon review, the submitted letters do not establish that the Beneficiary's employment 
with the organization requires outstanding achievements in the field of baseball 
coaching. While the Beneficiary's employment as a minor league coach with the team is 
noteworthy, the record is devoid of any evidence that "outstanding achievement " is a pre-requisite 
to employment with the team, or that membership in the organization required the Beneficiary to 
be judged by recognized national or international experts in his field. 
Finally, the Petitioner submitted a letter from of the 
confirmed the Beneficiary's membership in that assoc1at10n, 
describing the Beneficiary as "a highly specialized professional teacher of the game," and "an 
exemplary coach." The letter explained that "promotes active learning, camaraderie and 
rapport among all baseball coaches, including that between professional and amateur levels." 
did not discuss the manner in which screens and selects members. Therefore 
this testimonial evidence does not confirm that is an association which requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the discipline of baseball coaching. As such, the Petitioner has not shown that membership in 
this group is indicative of the Beneficiary 's national or international acclaim as a baseball coach. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
satisfies the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
Published material in professional or major trade publication s or major media about the 
alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classificatio n is sought, which 
shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary 
translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) , 
it must be "about" the Beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations , be printed in professional or 
major trade publications or major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or international distribution . The Petitioner did not initially assert that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion, and the Petitioner's initial submission did not include 
published material about the Beneficiary that meets this criterion. Accordingly , the Director 
determined 
that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion. 
On appeal the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based upon numerous 
articles written about him during the time that he was a baseball athlete. The Petitioner submitted 
eight published articles profiling or highlighting the Beneficiary's minor league level competition 
results, some in unidentified publications and others in the following publications: 
This documentation reflects published 
material about the Beneficiary relating to his work as a baseball athlete, not as a coach. However, in 
this case the field for which classification is sought is coaching. Therefore, this published material 
cannot serve to meet this regulatory criterion. Regardless , the Petitioner did not establish that any 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
of the above material was published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media by submitting evidence pertaining to the audience, circulation and distribution of the 
publications. 
The Petitioner also provides articles pertaining to his experience as a coach. First, the record 
includes two articles published in respectively, briefly 
mentioning new positions that the Beneficiary obtained with the in 1995 as a scout 
in Panama, and in 2000 as coach of of the The articles discuss 
multiple recent hires by several teams and are not about the Beneficiary or even the team that hired him. 
Second, the Petitioner submits a third article dated January that appeared on the website 
and is titled, is 
''4 The Petitioner did not provide~ certified translation of this article 
as required under 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Accepting the translation, the article discusses the 
composition of the team from _ province coached by the Beneficiary prior to its victory in the 
series, and the Beneficiary's assessment of the team's 
strengths and weaknesses. While this article is about the Beneficiary, relating to his work as a 
baseball coach, the Petitioner must also show that it appeared in a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. The Petitioner did not submit evidence pertaining to the audience, 
circulation and distribution of that online publication, to establish that the article appears in 
qualifying media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that this article meets all of the 
requirements of the regulation. Finally, while the Petitioner has provided several published materials 
relating to and , baseball players the Beneficiary coached, the articles do 
not specifically mention the Beneficiary and, therefore, are not "about" the Beneficiary, as required 
by the plain language of the statute. Based on the forgoing, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 C.P.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or in an alliedfield of specialization to thatfor which class(fication is 
sought 
The Petitioner did not initially suggest that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. Accordingly , 
the Director detetmined that the Petitioner did not submit any evidence to establish that the 
Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion based upon his work as a sports commentator in Panama for 
from 1989 to 1991, and in 1992 and 1993. The Petitioner did not provide 
certified translations for the letters confirming this experience as required. 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). 
More persuasively, the Petitioner also explains that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based 
upon his work as a scout for the confirmed that "[f]rom 1995 
through 2003 [the Beneficiary] scouted, managed , coached, instructed, trained, and counseled 
players at the Minor League level for the organization. " He lists several players 
4 The foreign language original contains the Beneficiary's name and <~ · typed at the top of the document , 
which the translator included , but this language does not appear to be part of the article as posted on the website. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
from the team's Dominican Republic branch that the Beneficiary assisted to advance to the Major 
including of Panama. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits materials from the Department of Labor's Occupational 
Information Network (O*Net), which provides general information regarding the tasks and work 
activities associated with a particular occupation . More specifically, the Petitioner provides the 
Summary Report for the occupation of coaches and scouts, indicating that the position may 
require one to "evaluate athletes' strengths and weaknesses as possible recruits or to improve the 
athletes' technique to prepare them for competition." We are persuaded that the Beneficiary ' s 
duties as a scout meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the.field 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion. The Petitioner does not challenge that conclusion on appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has abandoned that claim. See Sepulveda v. US Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th 
Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731 , 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011). 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based, in 
part, upon his having played for minor league teams affiliated with the and 
the . The Beneficiary's employment on those teams from 1988 to 1994 
would be based on his ability as a competitive athlete, not as a coach. In this case the field for 
which classification is sought is coaching. The Beneficiary's athletic accomplishments as a 
member of those teams, before he was active as a coach, cannot serve to meet this regulatory 
criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion based his having been a 
coach, instructor and scout for minor league teams affiliated with the On 
appeal the Petitioner submits copies of several letters from persons working in professional 
baseball, including persons associated with the organization. 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner has submitted two letters from a past 
Director of the Latin America Program for the confirming that from 1995 
through 2003 the Beneficiary scouted, coached and instructed players at the minor league level 
for the organization. In the initial letter, described the Beneficiary 
as "an essential key for the continuous development of Minor League players for advancement to 
the Major League and he lists several players from the team's Dominican 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-V-T- USA- LLC 
Republic branch that the Beneficiary assisted to advance to the Major League 
including of Panama. 
The Petitioner provided a letter from 
that he worked 
with the Beneficiary 
players, . and 
baseball players . 
a coach for the who states 
as a minor league coach for the team. He highlights two 
. whom the Beneficiary assisted to become Major League 
The Petitioner also submits a letter from Manager of Minor League Operations 
with the who states that the Beneficiary's coaching ability "has played a 
pivotal role in enabling several players to achieve great success." He provides, as an example, 
of the describes the Beneficiary as "among the most 
outstanding coaches in the United States." 
The Petitioner further includes a letter dated August 28, 2007, from , previously a 
scouting director and assistant general manager of player personnel of the who 
confirms that he hired the Beneficiary in 1995 as the team's scout in Panama and its on-field coach 
with the rookie team in the Dominican Republic . He indicates that in 1997, the Beneficiary was 
promoted to field manager with the team's Dominican affiliate. He further explains that the 
Beneficiary was subsequently promoted to work in the United States "with various minor league 
clubs in the development system" where he states the Beneficiary "continued to assist 
entry level players as an accomplished hitting instructor[,] with several of the players he worked 
with moving on and attaining success at the major league level." 
The appellate submission also contains letters from professional baseball players and 
both of whom the Beneficiar y coached in minor league affiliates of the 
confirms that the Beneficiary was his hitting instructor and coach during the 
2001 and 2002 seasons. explains that during the 2006 and 2007 season he was selected 
to be a member of the The record also reflects that -
advanced to the major league team in credits his success to 
his "great coaches and instructors ," and asserts that the Beneficiary helped him to develop into a 
better hitter. confirms that the Beneficiary signed him to play for the 
in 1999, and that, during his early years with the the Beneficiary would 
instruct him in pitching , "during spring training and again in Panama during the off season." 
states, "I credit a great deal of my success to [the Beneficiary ' s] teaching of the art of 
pitching." The record reflects that advanced to the major league 
team in 2006. 
While the is an organization with a distinguished reputation in the sport, and 
while the Beneficiary has clearly been able to provide expertise in the area of baseball coaching 
within the organization, the record does not confirm that his role as a 
baseball coach was essential or critical for that organization as a whole. The scope of this 
evidentiary criterion focuses on the Beneficiary and the relative importance of his position within 
11 
(b)(6)
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
the organizations that have employed him, such as evidence establishing how the Beneficiary 's 
coaching position related to other coaching positions in the organizations, the number of coaches 
employed or how many of the coaches took athletes to the major leagues. The Petitioner 's 
submissions do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary, as one of a number of minor league 
coaches, instructors and scouts, was responsible for the success or standing of the 
minor league affiliates for which he worked, to a degree consistent with the meaning of "critical or 
essential capacity. " 
The Petitioner further asserts that the Beneficiary's position as a coach for the youth team of 
Province, Panama was critical and essential. The Petitioner refers to published material 
discussing the Beneficiary's participation as a coach in Panama ' s 
In addition, as previously discussed, letter indicated that the 
Beneficiary "participated as Technical instructor [coach] in Panama" (brackets in original), and 
that in that position he "prepared the Major Teams of 1996 and 2000 where he was 
awarded 4 titles," and "[ d]irected and prepared the on three 
occasions, taking them to win the _ _ . " However, the record 
confirms that the Beneficiary was employed in 1994 as a professional baseball player, and from 
1995 to 2003 by the as a coach, instructor and scout of minor league 
baseball players. Upon review, there is no documentation that the Beneficiary was ever formally 
employed by the baseball league of Province. Further, the record does not contain any 
evidence that the organization has a distinguished reputation in the sport of baseball. 
The Beneficiary has also performed as a baseball coach for the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that it "features [the Beneficiary] as their premiere baseball batting coach" and that the 
Beneficiary ' s "physical presence will guarantee further exposure for the school, thus further 
enhancing its standing in the world of baseball." However, the record does not contain the 
required documentation in the form of articles in newspapers, trade journals, publications or 
testimonials establishing that the Petitioner has a distinguished reputation in the sport of baseball. 
While the remaining letters are recommendation letters from acquaintances of the Beneficiary 
describing his contributions to the community and praising his athletic achievements and 
coaching ability, the letters do not speak to the reputation of the petitioning entity, nor has the 
Petitioner shown that its baseball instruction business enjoys a distinguished reputation in the 
field. See 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). Again, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 65 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). Based on the foregoing , the Petitioner has not satisfied the plain language 
of this evidentiary criterion. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not presented the type of sustained national or international 
recognition of accomplishments necessary for 0-1 classification through the satisfaction of at least 
three of the regulatory criteria. 
12 
Matter ofW-V-T-USA- LLC 
V. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not provide a major, internationally recognized award and the documentation 
submitted does not satisfy three of the eight other evidentiary criteria specified in the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The record shows that the Beneficiary is a skilled baseball coach. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not established that the 
Beneficiary has extraordinary ability as a baseball coach, which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, as required by section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. Consequently, the 
Beneficiary is not eligible for nonimmigrant classification under section 101(a)(15)(0) of the Act. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the Petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter 
of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, 
the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed 
Cite as Matter qfW-V-T-USA-; LLC, ID# 13265 (AAO Sept. 14, 2015) 
13